I have thought about this and was thinking of using the TODO bundle to help
out with this. I think avoiding the database approach would simplify things.
It might not be as industrial strength, but is a much simpler
implementation.
The usage would go something like this:
A person enters TODO tags within the code such as --BUG OPEN BLH This code
is junk fix it please! The The format could be something like
--<TYPE> <STATE> <INITIALS> <COMMENT>
After someone reviews a file they submit it to source control with their
review comments included in the source. The only problem I see is if two
separate reviewers comment on the same line when it comes time to submit to
source control who's comment wins? This is what leans me back to a database
implementation. My assumption is that there may be 4 or more reviewers
reviewing the same code at any given time.
Thanks
Bob
On 4/16/07, Florian Gilcher <flo at andersground.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>> Hi,
>> this is an interesting suggestion. Have you considered to use
> subversions (or some other version system) annotation feature instead of
> a dedicated database? This would integrate the code reviews with the
> versioning process which sounds like a nice idea. It would even give you
> a nice interface to determining conflicts in the review process, which
> could be reviewed... ;)
>> Greetings
> Florian
>> Bob Henkel wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking at creating a bundle that can be used to provide peer code
> > reviews making use of TextMate for the majority if not all of the
> > process. I'm looking for high level input/suggestions. Does anyone else
> > think this would be helpful to them? Anyone else want to work on this
> > with me?
> >
> > The high level process of this goes like this:
> > ( A database is used to store a code file for review and all comments
> > submitted against that file. This allows metrics to be reported on as
> > well as allowing any number of people to review the same code at the
> > same time from many different locations. This also allows the status of
> > comments to be tracked and changed and what not. I think I can push and
> > pull data from a database pretty easily from TM. I'm looking at
> > targeting PostgreSQL.)
> >
> > 0. Code creator submits a file to be reviewed via TM.(Submitting
> > actually inserts the code into the database)
> > 1. Reviewer/s retrieves the stored file from the database and the file
> > contents are displayed in TM(This is all done via TM).
> > 2. Reviewer/s comments on a line by line basis or select multiple lines
> > and comment via TM. Each comment should have a status such as BUG,
> > STANDARDS BROKEN, GENERAL, etc. I'm thinking of using GUI integration
> > to allow data input.
> > 3. Code creator can comment on the comments left by a reviewer/s via TM.
> > Example "I did this because of XYZ".
> > 4. Code creator makes fixes in their code via TM based on reviewer/s
> > comments.
> > 5. Code creator submits changed code.
> > 6. Reviewer/s can then flag a comment as FIXED, COMPLETED, CLOSED etc.
> > These would be user configurable values I'm just showing these ones as
> > an example.
> > 7. Repeat 0 to 6 until all comments are in a FIXED/COMPELTE/CLOSED
> state.
> > 8. Mark review in the database as completed. This will keep anyone from
> > adding new comments. But the process above will all be in the database
> > for future reporting and what not if it's needed.
> >
> > Things I wish I could do, but not sure that I can:
> > 0. I can't mark a line in TextMate with a little graphic in the left
> > gutter to indicate that line has a comment on it. I do see maybe using
> > the HTML viewer like the TODO bundle does as an alternative. Is it
> > possible to highlight a line with a specific color on the fly? Say mark
> > a line with a BUG comment and the line will turn red and lines with
> > comments marked as GENERAL are yellow etc etc?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any input
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > For new threads USE THIS: textmate at lists.macromates.com> > (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't)
> > http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org>> iD8DBQFGI8Ln8RlGMqQ8m7oRAgurAJ9Hk1rpiEhltXiy4zxsTiXJt4gdJACfVO5h
> No/QWzieDiFRy4+rbbcafjo=
> =hSys
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ______________________________________________________________________
> For new threads USE THIS: textmate at lists.macromates.com> (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't)
>http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/attachments/20070417/00ba49de/attachment.html>